quote:
Considering a publicly-traded company’s mandate to maximize value for their shareholders, how can they justify paying higher wages and increased labor costs to Americans?

Are they not quasi-mandated to pursue these types of policies to return and maximize value to shareholders?

Where in their charter are they mandated to look after the greater domestic societal good of native employment-especially it affects the bottom line via increased labor costs?

Isn’t this just late-stage capitalism coming home to roost?

Are you this stupid?
This is actually what people have been saying against the 15.00 minimum wage and now you want to import labor for?? - CHEAP LABOR COSTS

Seriuously you are retarded right?

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by boosiebadazz

Member since Feb 2008

80399 posts

Posted on 6/1/21 at 9:28 pm to ninthward

quote:
Are you this stupid?
This is actually what people have been saying against the 15.00 minimum wage and now you want to import labor for?? - CHEAP LABOR COSTS

Seriuously you are retarded right?

Why are the two mutually exclusive? I guess one distinguishing factor is most of those minimum-wage jobs are dependent on geography (i.e can’t outsource serving the fast food burger to India), but the principle is still the same. Maximize profits for shareholders.

The more interesting question is whether a movement will start similar to the climate activists (who just voted out two board members at Shell and voted to make Chevron cut their emissions) whereby a group comes together to encourage native employment even to the detriment of shareholder value. Buy up blocks and begin voting at shareholder meetings. In the right industry with the right PR to accompany it, maybe you could gain market share to offset or minimize the rise in labor costs by hiring American and/or onshoring jobs.

This post was edited on 6/1/21 at 9:44 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board